Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Fellers v. United States

Docket No.: 02-6320
Certiorari Granted: Mar 10 2003
Argued: December 10, 2003
Decided: January 26, 2004

Topics:

Right to Counsel, Criminal Procedure, Right to Counsel, Equal Protection Clause, Fifth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Miranda, Sixth Amendment, self-incrimination

PartyNames: John J. Fellers v. United States
Petitioner: John J. Fellers
Respondent: United States

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Citation: CA 8, 285 F.3d 721. QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Did the Court of Appeals err when th ey concluded that Petitioner's SixthAmendment right to counsel under Massiah v. United States , 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because Petitioner was not "interrogated" by Government agents;when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent, is whether the Government agents "deliberately elicited" information from Petitioner? II. Should the second statements- preceded by Miranda warnings- have beensuppressed as fruits of the illegal post-indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court's decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)?
Supreme Court Docket

John J. Fellers
v.
United States
540 U.S. 519 (2004)
Question Presented:

I. Did the Court of Appeals err when th ey concluded that Petitioner's SixthAmendment right to counsel under Massiah v. United States , 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because Petitioner was not "interrogated" by Government agents;when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent, is whether the Government agents "deliberately elicited" information from Petitioner? II. Should the second statements- preceded by Miranda warnings- have beensuppressed as fruits of the illegal post-indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court's decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), andBrown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)? CERT. GRANTED: 3/10/03

Question:

(1) Was the appellate court correct to rule that officers did not violate Fellers' Sixth Amendment right to counsel because officers did not interrogate him? (2) Should Fellers' statements in the jailhouse - given after police Mirandized him - be suppressed because they were fruits of an unconstitutional interview in his home?

Note:

. CA 8, 285 F.3d 721.

Fellers v. United States
ORAL ARGUMENT

December 10, 2003

Holding: reversed and remanded
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Fellers, 0 vote(s) against
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)